Conservatives vs. liberals: Before you indoctrinate your kids, read this

This is a great essay by Michael Laser on the importance of opposing political viewpoints:

To my amazement, I’ve found that some of my political opposites’ ideas make sense. This doesn’t mean I’ve reversed my thinking, but it’s eye- opening. If you shut out the noise of talk radio and your own unshakable faith, you can find persuasive arguments on both sides of the divide. Here are a few that I came up with:

He then goes on to objectively list seven opposing viewpoints, before concluding with, “Contempt for the opposition may be profitable on talk radio, but it doesn’t help the rest of us. All it accomplishes is to drive people further into their angry, fanatical corners.”

Long live political checks and balances!

—December 1, 2010

3 Comments

Mark

Dec 1, 2010 at 10:57 am

I actually have to disagree with everything being taught here. In order for checks and balances to work, you need those extreme sides. It forces both parties to try and find some middle ground which often times produce the best results. If you look at the majority of America, most of us fit in the middle somewhere on the political spectrum just slightly leaning left or right. However, politicians are trying to make a career out of government, so they have to be true to their parties beliefs even if they themselves do not agree with the policy (think abortion). The extremes on both sides often will point out when those politicians are only trying to do what’s best for them vs. whats best for the people. You don’t have to agree with the extremes, but I really believe we need them in order to keep career politicians in check.

Blake

Dec 1, 2010 at 11:00 am

Agreed, Mark. Like a good prosecutor vs a good defense attorney, often a fair middle ground will be reached. That said, I think it’s important to understand different viewpoints, even if you don’t agree with them, to be able to compromise. No?

Mark

Dec 1, 2010 at 2:56 pm

Totally. I just think his essay and writing is very offensive and really jaded towards his own viewpoints and really contradicts the core idea of the article. When he says “If you shut out the noise of talk radio and your own unshakable faith,you can find persuasive arguments on both sides of the divide.” Don’t people of faith and talk radio hosts have persuasive and valid arguments as well? Why can’t we look at their points of view and determine if what they are saying is in line with our own opinions?

Then he finishes it off by saying “Contempt for the opposition may be profitable on talk radio, but it doesn’t help the rest of us. All it accomplishes is to drive people further into their angry, fanatical corners.” Really? All people that listen to talk radio are driven further into fanatical corners? How is that not offensive? I know a lot of people that listen to the Glenn Becks and Keith Olbermans of the world and have very good down to earth positions on a wide variety of subjects and I would in no way consider them all crazy fanatics.

Basically what he is saying is it’s OK to listen and agree with his point of view, but it is not OK to listen to the “fanatical talk show hosts” or the “unshakable faith religious people”. America is great because everyone can have a voice, but this guy makes his article sound like everyone shouldn’t have a voice, only those people that have a voice like his.

Blake Snow

writer-for-hire, content guy, bestselling author

Conservatives vs. liberals: Before you indoctrinate your kids, read this

Featured stories

Some of my favorites

Published works